These are chat archives for BSData/wh40k

17th
Aug 2018
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Aug 17 2018 04:33
So I had a discussion with someone this evening who has the SW codex
All the disappointment I was expecting?
Yeah. That's what it is.
The only thing new is the Wulfen dread
Now he didn't remember lots of details, but the competitive gamers (we would call them "internet famous") that looked at it were like, "Um...no."
Basically said they were the equivalent of BA
This makes me sad
Also, met @tekton tonight! Welcome to Austin! :)
tekton
@tekton
Aug 17 2018 04:35
./wave
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Aug 17 2018 04:36
@tekton was present for The Disappointment Channel broadcast. Did I miss anything?
tekton
@tekton
Aug 17 2018 04:48
No, that’s about it; few tweak but nothing to bring them above the other space marine codicies
The ultimate insult was also thrown out putting them at GK tier, but that was quickly retracted to put them at BA/DA tier
Joe Beddoe
@CrusherJoe
Aug 17 2018 06:01
It's not an insult if it's the truth sighs
Price Van-Saint
@sk_Father_Price_twitter
Aug 17 2018 10:13
oh man... I'm gonna need some stronger ear protectors for "The Howling" when this gets general release
not even better stratagems ?
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Aug 17 2018 10:14
I think the Howling will be heard around the world.
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Aug 17 2018 10:20
im wondering how much you can abuse the Lion and Wolf stratagem from the DA codex
if SW get a serious beat-stick, that could give a DC captain a run for their money
WindstormSCR
@WindstormSCR
Aug 17 2018 12:54
This is why i wentto sigmar for my close-combat jollies
because I realized trying to do it in 40k isn't a thing in this edition except for a select few units, even in casual settings
I'm beginning to think full fallback wasn't a great idea. a sigmar esque "you can shoot into your current combat with anything that isn't heavy" could help
or just some system that allows punishing a fallback move, be itmore CC hits or parting shots
Iain Launchbury
@Mad-Spy
Aug 17 2018 15:07
"Hey guys! The traits turn into auras, but we're not going to tell you how!"
Saga of the Bear would appear to be incredibly easy to trigger?
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Aug 17 2018 15:08
my guess is once you perform the deed, all SW units within 6" are affected by it
and yeah, but it might be one of the weaker ones to have as an aura
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Aug 17 2018 18:36
today on weird RAW: how does a 1+ characteristic work?
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Aug 17 2018 18:37
What do you mean?
Master valrak posted up an orks leak speculation video - if true da boyz are going to be sick
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Aug 17 2018 18:42
e.g. a Succubus takes Serpentin as her combat drug - her WS is now 1+. how does that work?
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Aug 17 2018 18:43
Uh I would assume it would just immediately change?
I’m not sure I understand what’s so weird about it?
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Aug 17 2018 18:45
if you have a -1 to hit, does a natural 2 hit?
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Aug 17 2018 18:46
Oh oh oh I get what you’re saying now
Uhhhhhhh
Hmm
I guess it still would
Do 1s always fail?
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Aug 17 2018 18:52
"A roll of 1 always fails, irrespective of any modifiers that may apply."
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Aug 17 2018 18:53
Kk
So...
Yeah even though a 1 always fails I’d say if you have a 1+ characteristic that means a -1 still means your hitting on 2s
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Aug 17 2018 18:56
so what about if you have a -2 modifier?
by the same logic, a 2 should still be a hit
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Aug 17 2018 18:58
-2 on a 1+ would be a 3+, wouldn’t it?
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Aug 17 2018 18:59
you cant modify a roll below a 1 though, so in both cases the 2 is modified to a 1
if that doesnt automatically fail, it must pass, since it is equal to her WS
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Aug 17 2018 19:02
But you’re not modifying below a 1? She has a 1+ (which still only hits on 2s). A -1 means she’s now hitting on 2s “modified”, so a -2 means you’re discounting both rolls of 1 and rolls of 2; meaning she’s hitting on 3s, no?
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Aug 17 2018 19:03
what's the logic that allows her to hit on 2s with a -1; that roll is modified to a 1, which is equal to her WS of 1+, so it hits?
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Aug 17 2018 19:04
From my local TO who’s also one of the nova judges:
I believe the answer is yes. Her weapon skill becomes WS1+ because there are no limits on WS going that high. She rolls to hit and rolls a 2, which is modified to a 1, which is still a valid hit for her. Since the rule says "A roll of 1 always fails irrespective of any modifiers that may apply", the modified 1 to hit doesn't count as an automatic miss.
Natural ones always miss though of course.
Me: So if it were a -2 to hit it would be 3s she hits on then, no?
Sam: Seems right to me
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Aug 17 2018 19:05
so by that logic, she always hits on a 2+, since the roll can never be modified below a 1
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Aug 17 2018 19:05
But you’re not modifying below a 1
Modifying below a 1 would be if she had like a +3 to hit
It’s like subtracting negatives
Because you can modify a hit roll past 6; but that’s done with minus modifiers
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Aug 17 2018 19:08
that's not consistent with the explanation above. you roll a 2, apply a -2 modifier to get 0, but it cant go below a 0 so it's a 1
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Aug 17 2018 19:08
That’s not how that works though
Applying a -2 means you’re adding 2 to the requirement to hit
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Aug 17 2018 19:09
no, it means you're subtracting it from what the dice shows
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Aug 17 2018 19:11

“Note that,regardless of the source, characteristics of ‘-’ can never be modified, and the Strength, Toughness and Leadership characteristics of a model can never be modified below a 1”

Excerpt From
Warhammer 40,000
Games Workshop Ltd
This material may be protected by copyright.

Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Aug 17 2018 19:12
we're not modifying a '-', Strength, Toughness, or Leadership
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Aug 17 2018 19:14
No I’m saying the “modified below a 1” only applies to s,t,ld
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Aug 17 2018 19:15
the Designers' Commentary says a dice roll can't be modified below a 1
otherwise a natural 1 with a -1 to hit wouldn't cause plasma to explode
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Aug 17 2018 19:22
Isn't it like:
  • roll a dice
  • check the value of natural roll for any rules purposes (re-rolls, plasma 1s etc)
  • apply modifiers and compare the result with the Characteristic
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Aug 17 2018 19:23
abilities are after modifiers
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Aug 17 2018 19:23
What does that mean?
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Aug 17 2018 19:24
so if you have a -1 to hit, plasma explodes on a natural 2 as well, since it is a 1 after modifiers
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Aug 17 2018 19:24
Oooh you mean Plasma "ability" right, right.
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Aug 17 2018 19:42
Yeah so RAW you’re right, I’ll agree to that
Talking it over with Sammy we’ve pretty much come to the same conclusion
Now just trying to figure out where else that’s a thing
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Aug 17 2018 19:46
The Lion and The Wolf
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Aug 17 2018 19:46
But yeah a succubus only misses on a nat1 in cc
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Aug 17 2018 19:48
Zahndrekh and Szeras can do it to BS
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Aug 17 2018 19:51

Actually, I think this might actually be the other way around.

Hit Roll: […] A roll of 1 always fails, irrespective of any modifiers that may apply.
Core rules, Shooting Phase, 4. Resolve Attacks

Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Aug 17 2018 19:51
That means natural though
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Aug 17 2018 19:51
Not really.
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Aug 17 2018 19:52
yeah, it's dependent on how you read that line. does irrespective mean that you ignore modifiers when determining if it is a 1 and therefore fails
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Aug 17 2018 19:52
I would say so
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Aug 17 2018 19:53
But then we get to this, let's admit it, crazy situation, when you can actually hit/wound/save on 1+
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Aug 17 2018 19:53
ir·re·spec·tive
ˌi(r)rəˈspektiv/Submit
adjective
not taking (something) into account; regardless of.
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Aug 17 2018 19:54
that's also how i would read it
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Aug 17 2018 19:54
So that means that only applies to nat1s
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Aug 17 2018 19:54
so RAW, a 1+ characteristic is always successful on a 2+ regardless of modifiers
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Aug 17 2018 19:54
Correct
Which is weird
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Aug 17 2018 19:55
yeah, this is the weird RAW section :smile:
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Aug 17 2018 19:55
Okay, and what happens when we have two abilities that improve a 2+ characteristic by 1?
We get 0+?
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Aug 17 2018 19:56
yes. and that's functionally the same as a 1+
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Aug 17 2018 19:56
Why?
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Aug 17 2018 19:57
since you cant get lower than a 1, >= 0 is equivalent to >= 1
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Aug 17 2018 20:11
exciting stuff
who dared post some bugs for me...?!
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Aug 17 2018 20:14
So the necron one is interesting
It’s what a 1-in-9 chance for it to functionally ignore modifiers
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Aug 17 2018 20:21
Because zahndrekh has to be within 6” of a squad to do his power, and it’s only on a 3 or 4, then szeras has to be within 1” of a warrior or immortal squad to use his power which is on a 5 or 6
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Aug 17 2018 20:30
Szeras's is also permanent, so if he gets his twice in a row, that unit is BS 1+ for the rest of the game.
Whereas Zahndrekh's can be used on any unit, so you could buff a command barge up to BS 1+ for a turn.
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Aug 17 2018 20:31
You can only target a unit with his power once per battle
So no
You need both guys
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Aug 17 2018 20:31
oh, i must have missed that
yeah, you're right. didnt see it below the table of effects
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Aug 17 2018 20:32
But by t4 if you haven’t killed both of them potentially half your army is bs2+, with 1 squad being bs1+
Simon Porter
@FarseerVeraenthis
Aug 17 2018 20:39
(bugs = dead)
Will Pattison
@GenWilhelm
Aug 17 2018 20:42
:star:
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Aug 17 2018 20:51
@amis92 #3428
His main argument is incorrect, but he’s actually found something about the MV84 that is incorrect in the data
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Aug 17 2018 20:55

You know, I don't really have a stable opinion. I mean, Target lock does have the points cost in Codex, but Target lock (Y'vahra) doesn't. It's the same wargear, but the exclusion is being made specifically for some unit. Does Codex trump that?

I mean, obviously, I did so, but I see where the argument can be made.

OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 17 2018 21:25
@amis92 You should do it for the big cheese. (Better known as the Greater Gouda...) Because it all sounds pretty cheesy to me ... adjusts halo
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Aug 17 2018 21:25
Hey there, which version sounds cheesy?
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 17 2018 21:29
From a general perspective why not offer a 'idiot switch' which allowed either points implementation?
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Aug 17 2018 21:30
'cause it's additional stuff that won't really matter for anyone except that guy, and I can answer reports from these people all day long.
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 17 2018 21:32
From a release timeframe standpoint was the T'au codex released after the forgeworld doc?
(that's what it looks like)
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Aug 17 2018 21:33
Truth is, GW's is lazy-ass as always. They created keywords, why the fuck can't they use them for these things?
  • Target lock (Riptide Chassis) 1000pts
  • Target lock (all other models) 5pts
Yeah it was
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Aug 17 2018 21:34
@amis92 because FW
Y’Vahra is FW
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 17 2018 21:35
@alphalas has a point ... there are times that FW can be pretty annoying.
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Aug 17 2018 21:35
And apparently even though FW goes into ChapApp fine, FW still doesn’t go into codecies because “FW writes their own rules™️”
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 17 2018 21:36
It's not substantially different than the insanity that is Necromunda ... with Underhive ... and now 4 editions of Gang Wars ...
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Aug 17 2018 21:36
I mean, I don't believe they'll ever get their shit together, but still.
Jon Kissinger
@alphalas
Aug 17 2018 21:37
@amis92 considering how bad HH rules have been recently no, they won’t
But it’s not GW’s problem. It’s FW’s
OftKilted
@OftKilted
Aug 17 2018 21:43
@amis92 What's the LoE for us to add appveyor to some of the other data catalogs? Is there an advantage/disadvantage to doing so?
Amadeusz Sadowski
@amis92
Aug 17 2018 21:47
Not much. I've to enable it on AppVeyor manually, and .appveyor.yml has to be committed.
Oh, and the repo has to have Bots team added for Write access.
tekton
@tekton
Aug 17 2018 23:04
I walked away from my books, but my other chat is trying to find where a rule does/doesn’t say that a single dominus knight detachment doesn’t get a household trait...